Okay, this may seem to contradict an earlier comment I made regarding Oscar's methods but is it possible his abrupt "yank" across the ball is simply his way of describing (in a needlessly confusing way, mind you) what is nothing more than the way the racquet head appears to travel on a "new normal," western grip, windshield wiper finish forehand when a player hitting it like a Nadal makes a significant weight shift as he accelerates the racquet forward that is more-or-less parallel to the baseline as opposed to being more forward into the court ? If such is the case, then this entire debate seems pointless as the "abrupt" change in direction of the racquet head he sees the pros (particularly the ones he takes credit for influencing) making is not done with the hands, arms, or shoulders as he appears to advocate but by the legs and feet shifting the body from right to left (or left to right for us southpaws ). Maybe?

Okay, this may seem to contradict an earlier comment I made regarding Oscar's methods but is it possible his abrupt "yank" across the ball is simply his way of describing (in a needlessly confusing way, mind you) what is nothing more than the way the racquet head appears to travel on a "new normal," western grip, windshield wiper finish forehand when a player hitting it like a Nadal makes a significant weight shift as he accelerates the racquet forward that is more-or-less parallel to the baseline as opposed to being more forward into the court ? If such is the case, then this entire debate seems pointless as the "abrupt" change in direction of the racquet head he sees the pros (particularly the ones he takes credit for influencing) making is not done with the hands, arms, or shoulders as he appears to advocate but by the legs and feet shifting the body from right to left (or left to right for us southpaws ). Maybe?

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the forward component of the RHS at impact is twice that of the vertical component, so the momentum is still overwhelmingly forward in the Federer analysis.

What I personally learnt from this analysis was that the vertical component of the velocity continues to increase after impact (though the overall speed decreases). This should be an eye-opener for many people. In the Nadal windshield wipers you mention, it will be more so.

The yank is just the term for the overall rotational motion and as you rightly point out, it is not an arm thing and should not be, as that would be arming the ball. It is similar to the claim that DTL and CC shots are just a matter of the hands, when in fact you can see how much the pros use body rotation and body power into their intended direction.

This vid is awesome for showing how on the inside out Fh, the hand is already
is moving well across to Fed's left, (our rt) before contact.
Hand is clearly moving to Fed's left comparing to the background and ball goes off to
Fed's right.
If someone doesn't get it from this vid, they are just not willing to accept what
the vid clearly shows. No idea how Jy could argue the vid does not confirm
what MTM states about pulling up & across into contact.

The vid also addresses moving back during the stroke.

There is another key aspect in telling which of these in I/O and which is I/I, that
I'm waiting to see who notices.

This vid is awesome for showing how on the inside out Fh, the hand is already is moving well across to Fed's left, (our rt) before contact.
Hand is clearly moving to Fed's left comparing to the background and ball goes off to Fed's right.
If someone doesn't get it from this vid, they are just not willing to accept what the vid clearly shows. No idea how Jy could argue the vid does not confirm what MTM states about pulling up & across into contact.

The vid also addresses moving back during the stroke.

There is another key aspect in telling which of these in I/O and which is I/I, that I'm waiting to see who notices.

Click to expand...

Yeah, awesome vid. (Thanks Cheetah)

Anxious to hear what "another key aspect" is 5263.

This does seem to support OW's contention that it's primarily, if not exclusively, about racquet head control.

This vid is awesome for showing how on the inside out Fh, the hand is already
is moving well across to Fed's left, (our rt) before contact.
Hand is clearly moving to Fed's left comparing to the background and ball goes off to
Fed's right.
If someone doesn't get it from this vid, they are just not willing to accept what
the vid clearly shows. No idea how Jy could argue the vid does not confirm
what MTM states about pulling up & across into contact.

The vid also addresses moving back during the stroke.

There is another key aspect in telling which of these in I/O and which is I/I, that
I'm waiting to see who notices.

Click to expand...

i would like to say that the angle of the right foot with Feder and Soderling is a little bit different once they transfer the weight to it. that the toes point a little bit more to the front on the one that goes crosscourt. Nadal, being a southpaw, it would be the left foot.
just my opinion from watching the video

Some interesting points - I know very little about MTM but I think I understand what Oscar means when he uses the term 'yank'.

From a laid back wrist position (butt cap pointing at the ball) I think it is simply an/the initial movement 4-6" before the wrist starts to rotate into the WW motion.

I see some people rotate their body into the shot and hit the WW motion at/just before impact - they have good topspin. I've tried it and it works.

However, if you add a little arm to pull the butt towards the ball (as you rotate) just before impact you get more pace and more spin. I think this is what Oscar means by 'yank'. Pulling the butt forward and up, (as you rotate ) actually moves it up and across. It also seems to add RHS as the WW motion seems faster and more natural.

Bounce the ball up in teh air with your racquet like you're doing "ups". the ball goes "up" because the face of teh racquet is up, not because your arm is moving up. Now, do your "ups" and then turn the racquet towards the side fence. The ball does not go up, even though your arm is moving up.. bottom line, the ball goes where the strings are pointed..It is very easy to swing across and hit down the line or inside out. The racquet head just lags a bit more.

This vid is awesome for showing how on the inside out Fh, the hand is already
is moving well across to Fed's left, (our rt) before contact.
Hand is clearly moving to Fed's left comparing to the background and ball goes off to
Fed's right.
If someone doesn't get it from this vid, they are just not willing to accept what
the vid clearly shows. No idea how Jy could argue the vid does not confirm
what MTM states about pulling up & across into contact.

The vid also addresses moving back during the stroke.

There is another key aspect in telling which of these in I/O and which is I/I, that
I'm waiting to see who notices.

Click to expand...

You can show "exhibit A" a thousand videos of how the top pros manipulate racket face angle and amount of wrist lay back to hit different forehands but he will simply not see it.

As far as jy is concerned it is my opinion that mtm and jy are pretty much in agreement about what is happening but are just arguing over the language.

Oscar, since you´re online, would you care to guess about the key aspect in telling the fh´s apart, that 5263 sees?

Click to expand...

Heys trebs, there are several small adjustments as you noted like the feet and
hips to an extent, but the give away for me was something MTM teaches.
Notice when the racket is back and racket butt is facing directly at the ball to
pull for contact?
Notice how the line to the contact is different for each of the shots?
at 1:14 in the vid with it paused.
See how the line from the hand to the ball would extend pretty
close to the shot direction? That line points to I/O for that and I/I for the other.
This is subtle too, but more clear giveaway imo and also tougher for the player
to alter once it's done.
It goes with how MTM describes bringing the hand directly to the contact, dragging
the racket in a sort of straight line as you can see here. Very slight arc till just
before contact where the change of direction takes place much more clearly on
a much sharper arc.

It is obvious that the ball goes perpendicular to the face of the strings. No one is saying otherwise.

In addition to this necessary step controlled by the hand, the pros have powerful upper body movement which puts the power behind the shot. Last night, Ashley Harkleroad (the newly minted Tennis Channel commentator) was admiring the body rotation of Li Na as she hit a sharply angled backhand cross-court winner. I know you think you are above watching the WTA (but I am not aware of you working with any ATP player either or anywhere close to that), but the point is the body rotation into the shot was so visible in a replay.

Just using the hands is the characteristic of many low-level club players. It may be good for coaching beginners, as many of the tips here are. Using only the hand is certainly a good first step.

Heys trebs, there are several small adjustments as you noted like the feet and
hips to an extent, but the give away for me was something MTM teaches.
Notice when the racket is back and racket butt is facing directly at the ball to
pull for contact?
Notice how the line to the contact is different for each of the shots?
at 1:14 in the vid with it paused.
See how the line from the hand to the ball would extend pretty
close to the shot direction? That line points to I/O for that and I/I for the other.
This is subtle too, but more clear giveaway imo and also tougher for the player
to alter once it's done.
It goes with how MTM describes bringing the hand directly to the contact, dragging
the racket in a sort of straight line as you can see here. Very slight arc till just
before contact where the change of direction takes place much more clearly on
a much sharper arc.

Wrong. The racket head will follow thru with extension towards the target (CC or DTL) before it turns over, maintaining an almost vertical string plane. It is all in the contact. The ball doesn't care if the racket is lagging or not, or how how the racket moves after contact.

A former pro and famous coach, Peter Burwash, explained in a Tennis Mag article last year how eyes are deceiving. High swing speeds make the casual observer think the pros are not extending through the ball, which is debunked with slow motion video. He also cautioned that rec players employing abrupt across motion produce ineffective strokes and injure themselves.

Peter is a (verified) pro from around Oscar's time whose tournament career record is up for all to see, and owns a huge coaching and management chain and has coached thousands of players. Unlike anonymous coaches here, you can see what he puts it writing and stands by it.

Click to expand...

Suresh,

Did you do the excercise? Are you saying that the "path" has to match the intended target line? If so, I disagree. That would be an incredible labor intensive way to play.

Here's a question for you. How do you explain a slice? The path is down, and yet the ball leaves up?

Did you do the excercise? Are you saying that the "path" has to match the intended target line? If so, I disagree. That would be an incredible labor intensive way to play.

Here's a question for you. How do you explain a slice? The path is down, and yet the ball leaves up?

Click to expand...

What is this "path?" Analyze the videos yourself. There is movement towards the intended target before and a little after contact. That is what generates the velocity towards the target. No other way is possible to get the result of forward velocity twice the upward velocity. There has to be momentum build in the direction of intent, and inertia demands that the extension continue a little longer. Tangential shots cannot achieve such forward speeds.

If you are making up your own images and coming to your own conclusions and asking me to disagree or agree, I cannot help with that. In general, I am tired of people arguing with me instead of focusing on Oscar's tips. This is how threads are derailed.

Regarding the slice, it is interesting you asked. By coincidence, I received Tennis Rag yesterday, and there is John Evert (proven coach) explaining how even in the backhand slice, the racket extends towards the target before moving across. 5263 will have a lot to say about it, and it should be interesting, because I also believe that modern slice has more of an across component and would like to hear about the extension part.

Wrong. The racket head will follow thru with extension towards the target (CC or DTL) before it turns over, maintaining an almost vertical string plane. It is all in the contact. The ball doesn't care if the racket is lagging or not, or how how the racket moves after contact.

A former pro and famous coach, Peter Burwash, explained in a Tennis Mag article last year how eyes are deceiving. High swing speeds make the casual observer think the pros are not extending through the ball, which is debunked with slow motion video. He also cautioned that rec players employing abrupt across motion produce ineffective strokes and injure themselves.

Peter is a (verified) pro from around Oscar's time whose tournament career record is up for all to see, and owns a huge coaching and management chain and has coached thousands of players. Unlike anonymous coaches here, you can see what he puts it writing and stands by it.

Click to expand...

Burwash specializes in resort tennis, as do his pros. Not involved with today's top juniors.

Like I said before, the actual path the racquet takes is not important in real life. I teach kids to find the ball, accelerate at contact, pull across. As do other coaches like Sekou Bangoura. We never mention extending out in any way. Yet the results are great forehands. Sekou's son is top 600 in the world being taught that way.

The simple truth is Oscar's imagery and descriptions work in real life, despite what the slo mo video shows.

Notice when the racket is back and racket butt is facing directly at the ball to pull for contact?
Notice how the line to the contact is different for each of the shots?
at 1:14 in the vid with it paused.
See how the line from the hand to the ball would extend pretty
close to the shot direction? That line points to I/O for that and I/I for the other.

What is this "path?" Analyze the videos yourself. There is movement towards the intended target before and a little after contact. That is what generates the velocity towards the target. No other way is possible to get the result of forward velocity twice the upward velocity. There has to be momentum build in the direction of intent, and inertia demands that the extension continue a little longer. Tangential shots cannot achieve such forward speeds.

If you are making up your own images and coming to your own conclusions and asking me to disagree or agree, I cannot help with that. In general, I am tired of people arguing with me instead of focusing on Oscar's tips. This is how threads are derailed.

Regarding the slice, it is interesting you asked. By coincidence, I received Tennis Rag yesterday, and there is John Evert (proven coach) explaining how even in the backhand slice, the racket extends towards the target before moving across. 5263 will have a lot to say about it, and it should be interesting, because I also believe that modern slice has more of an across component and would like to hear about the extension part.

Click to expand...

Easy, we're just talking here. To create maximum horizontal velocity, a player would use angular momentum, an arc...not straight or towards the target..In the chetah video, can you not see the lag in the racquet head on inside out shots..I think the problem with your tangent argument, is that you are discounting the range of motion of the wrist from completely extended to netruel. This gives a player the ability to hit the ball on a wide array of shot lines, even while swinging on an arc. If the wrist, was welded/immovable than your argument would make sense.

BTW, i'd like to know how John Evert accounts for sidespin on almost all slices. The answer is IMO, an outside in path.

BTW, i'd like to know how John Evert accounts for sidespin on almost all slices. The answer is IMO, an outside in path.

Click to expand...

It is not that he doesn't account for it. He is not some anonymous guy behind a computer, but a real person who people bring their children to. It is not either or. There will be extension across and towards the target to provide side and back spin.

It is not that he doesn't account for it. He is not some anonymous guy behind a computer, but a real person who people bring their children to. It is not either or. There will be extension across and towards the target to provide side and back spin.

Click to expand...

Well i've taught my share of great players. Anyway, Lloyd doesn't understand that there will be no sidespin if the racquet extends first before it comes across. The ball is gone. The direction of the path into the ball creates the axis of rotation. Least that's how i see it.

Well i've taught my share of great players. Anyway, Lloyd doesn't understand that there will be no sidespin if the racquet extends first before it comes across. The ball is gone. The direction of the path into the ball creates the axis of rotation.

Click to expand...

No, the sequence is created by you as a strawman which you yourself destroy. He never mentioned any sequence as being there or not there. Why don't you read the article first instead of trying to show off here?

And it is not Lloyd. And I would go by established people than someone behind a computer who claims this or that. Too many "coaches" here whose main job is to criticize other coaches who don't post here. It is because of their lack of results.

No, the sequence is created by you as a strawman which you yourself destroy. He never mentioned any sequence as being there or not there. Why don't you read the article first instead of trying to show off here?

And it is not Lloyd. And I would go by established people than someone behind a computer who claims this or that. Too many "coaches" here whose main job is to criticize other coaches who don't post here. It is because of their lack of results.

Click to expand...

Ok LOL, than while we're giving advice, why don't you actually learn how to hit a forehand instead of spending so much time here. You obviously know what your doing.

I hope folks are open to this. The golf folks are ahead of us in the subject of face angle vs swing path. They have been using Doppler radar and have data that concludes that face angle contributes to ball direction 5 times more than swing path.

I hope folks are open to this. The golf folks are ahead of us in the subject of face angle vs swing path. They have been using Doppler radar and have data that concludes that face angle contributes to ball direction 5 times more than swing path.

great post...yeah I was going to mention this, but was afraid I'd get grounded by Suresh.

Click to expand...

Are we interested in a speed of a head of a racket?
It came to my attention that tennis has a net and a court of FINITE SIZE.
Please specify what are we talking about?
What is a relation between golf and Oscar?
Why we do NOT start a separate thread?

great post...yeah I was going to mention this, but was afraid I'd get grounded by Suresh.

Click to expand...

LOL do you even know what he is talking about? Contributes 4 times to what? You thought speed right? It is starting direction. He is saying the face angle determines the launch angle to a great extent.

Are we talking about the launch angle here? No. You should at least read before you post.

The ball should roughly go perpendicular to the string plane, so the face angle will be the main factor. It is so obvious. We are discussing extension and across movements here.

But this is a great teaching moment.

A short swing from close to the ball is called what? A put.

Is the drive done by bringing the club head close to the ball and then accelerating? Or does the swing start gaining movement from way back over the head on the other side and then explode into the ball? Does the golfer gently find and catch the ball and then accelerate on the drive?

If he does that, he would be putting. In tennis, the ball would not even clear the net.

LOL do you even know what he is talking about? Contributes 4 times to what? You thought speed right? It is starting direction. He is saying the face angle determines the launch angle to a great extent.

Are we talking about the launch angle here? No. You should at least read before you post.

The ball should roughly go perpendicular to the string plane, so the face angle will be the main factor. It is so obvious. We are discussing extension and across movements here.

But this is a great teaching moment.

A short swing from close to the ball is called what? A put.

Is the drive done by bringing the club head close to the ball and then accelerating? Or does the swing start gaining movement from way back over the head on the other side and then explode into the ball? Does the golfer gently find and catch the ball and then accelerate on the drive?

If he does that, he would be putting. In tennis, the ball would not even clear the net.

Click to expand...

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. How it relates to tennis and oscars teachings is not acceleration to impact. But rather the angle of the racket face at contact. Regardless of the arc of the swing of the arm. It is supporting oscars view that all you have to do is manipulate the hand in the direction of the shot. And it has a bigger impact on accuracy than the swing path. Just point the face in direction you want it to go. And pull across at a different vector. And the ball go in the direction you point the racket face even while the arms swing arc can differ.

Please learn to apply actual points the article is making instead of misapplying them to make a point about something it has nothing to do with. It has nothing to do with getting the ball over the net. Follow your own advice and comprehend what you read.

Its like if you posted a comment about how olympic swimming is done in pools with chlorine and then some person says to you,"your wrong because surfers compete in the ocean". Wtf?

LOL do you even know what he is talking about? Contributes 4 times to what? You thought speed right? It is starting direction. He is saying the face angle determines the launch angle to a great extent.

Are we talking about the launch angle here? No. You should at least read before you post.

The ball should roughly go perpendicular to the string plane, so the face angle will be the main factor. It is so obvious. We are discussing extension and across movements here.

But this is a great teaching moment.

A short swing from close to the ball is called what? A put.

Is the drive done by bringing the club head close to the ball and then accelerating? Or does the swing start gaining movement from way back over the head on the other side and then explode into the ball? Does the golfer gently find and catch the ball and then accelerate on the drive?

If he does that, he would be putting. In tennis, the ball would not even clear the net.

Click to expand...

Huh? What? Ok, so you don't know anything about golf either. I've been a scratch player for 15 years or so, but that means nothing in the world of internet gurus like yourself..Anyway, what they're finding out through trackman (and this runs counter to conventional wisdom) is that the club face at impact is what determines WHERE/ON WHAT LINE the ball starts on. (left to right dispersion) And this is true regardless of WHAT PATH the club is traveling on....inside out, outside in etc....THE PATH of the club is what is responsible for the spin axis, or the curvature of the ball in flight. (fade or draw) EXAMPLE: TOUR PLAYERS: Those that play a fade shot, create a path the produces fade spin WITH the clubface "toed down" or slightly closed at impact, so the ball starts a little left of the target.

Incidently, this whole swing down the target line (extension towards the target) vs in an arc is a topic of debate in the golf world as well. But not really a very good one. Those that teach the game know (through studies and video) that the club is traveling in an arc (to create angular speed). It has to. Swinging a club, or a racquet in an extended down the line manner is slow, stiff, and inefficient.

Arche addressed very well the basic parallel with a tennis stroke, and how the racquet can move in an arc, and yet with hand direct it to different quadrents of the court. And so one gets the benefit of angular speed and the ability to direct the ball (with different amounts of wrist layback) to any part of the court. Having said that, if you wish to run around the court and always direct the racquet/path down the inteded shot line, be my guest. It's terribly inefficient.

Having said that, I'm not discounting different amounts of extension on an arc. There are a multitude of different swing shapes. The underlying isssue, though, is that you need not direct the path/racquet down the intended target line to get it to go there.

P.S Did you even try the "ups" example i gave. And if so, what does that say about the path vs the racquet face.......I'll save you the time..The implications are that the path has very little to do with where the ball starts. It's all racquet face angle at impact.

I think it has been established that the racket can move across the ball outside in, while the ball goes inside out. It is a matter of the angle between the ball and the racket. And apart from the inside out direction, this also provides outward spin. And this goes for shots in other directions, and other spins as well, topspin, slice, right spin, left spin, horisontal, and vertical direction. The racket can go up, and the ball down. The racket can go down, and the ball up. The racket can go left, and the ball right, and vice versa. Ofcourse there is a foreward component to the shot also, but that does not change this, and is pretty obvious imo.
Btw, I am not really sure I am an advocate of Wegners advice of using the wrist to adjust this. I would tend to recommend laying the wrist back and letting it primarily be a result of body position and timing. Allthough I do probably lay my wrist back more in an inside out fh, than in a cc.

Btw, I am not really sure I am a an advocate of Wegners advice of using the wrist to adjust this. I would tend to recommend laying the wrist back and letting it more be a result of body position and timing.

Click to expand...

Does Oscar say it that way?
I laying the wrist back a form of using the wrist to adjust?
thanks,

I think it has been established that the racket can move across the ball outside in, while the ball goes inside out. It is a matter of the angle between the ball and the racket. And apart from the inside out direction, this also provides outward spin. And this goes for shots in other directions, and other spins as well, topspin, slice, right spin, left spin, horisontal, and vertical direction. The racket can go up, and the ball down. The racket can go down, and the ball up. The racket can go left, and the ball right, and vice versa. Ofcourse there is a foreward component to the shot also, but that does not change this, and is pretty obvious imo.
Btw, I am not really sure I am an advocate of Wegners advice of using the wrist to adjust this. I would tend to recommend laying the wrist back and letting it primarily be a result of body position and timing. Allthough I do probably lay my wrist back more in an inside out fh, than in a cc.

Click to expand...

Pros hit inside out in the same body position as an inside in so they do not telegraph the intended shot. The variable being the amount of wrist layback to dictate direction. The hand facing the way you want it to go. Exaxctly as oscar describes. There are other subtle differences but body position and foot work is generally the same.

That is what I thought I saw and heard in the video where he sat on the chair, etc. But perhaps I am wrong.

Click to expand...

Hey, you may be right, especially if it came from an interview comment. Often
things can be said that make sense in context and based on the discussion that
may not be the best stand alone info.

He does talk about using the hands to control shots and how tennis is played
with the hands. Much of what is done with the hands will come from the wrist
I guess, but when I think of using the wrist in tennis, imo it is more about using
the wrist for power or spin with an excessive action.
Very hard to discuss wrist use in tennis due to different perspectives about it.
thanks

The posts by tennisballa and arche3 really nailed it out of the park. I have been coaching for 20 plus years and have lots of coaching buddies much smarter than I am, but who do not post here.

The reasons are all the same. A few very prolific posters will dissect every post. They will use physics and/or obscure logic to twist and muddy any basic instruction that is given.

By the end of the thread everyone's head is spinning and even the most fundamental instruction tips are lost. I could not imagine being a tennis newbie here....trying to pick out the good tips that would actually help them, from all the confusing noise, would be impossible.

If LeBron James had his every movement analyzed by these posters, and tried to muddle through and follow all their analytical advice, the poor guy would be so confused he would not be able to walk and chew gum anymore.